You can’t be “against” the absence of something
Uh… yes you can? I mean, that’s just being “for” something. Double negatives must be a real hard concept to grasp for Mr Logical™
The opposite of “Everything is a social construct”. “Everything that isn’t a social construct isn’t actually really”. Antimaterialism as dogma.
i mean it’s true insofar as the most incisive theorists of capitalism were and are its critics. For its proponents, it works best when it is unperceivable.
Unfortunately the idea that capitalism is made-up isn’t new. It’s something libertarians say. To them, socialists made up capitalism to couch their own political ideology. If the modern world is based on human nature, if economic laws are eternal and automatic, then there is no “ism”, it’s just what must happen, and therefore anything else (like socialism) is false and contrived.
I’ve had a coworker unironically tell me that capitalism doesn’t exist in the US because government meddling prevents true capitalism from doing its thing.
He considers himself a libertarian, too.
Centrist liberals excels at this at well. How often have you heard drivel like “ideologies are bad!” or “we just listen to the experts!”?
lmao, this is exactly the same as when American Christian fundamentalists argue that Christianity isn’t a religion but all the other religions are
In footnote 34 of Capital vol 1 Marx quotes himself in this passage from The Poverty of Philosophy:
“Economists have a singular method of procedure. There are only two kinds of institutions for them, artificial and natural. The institutions of feudalism are artificial institutions, those of the bourgeoisie are natural institutions. In this, they resemble the theologians, who likewise establish two kinds of religion. Every religion which is not theirs is an invention of men, while their own is an emanation from God. When the economists say that present-day relations – the relations of bourgeois production – are natural, they imply that these are the relations in which wealth is created and productive forces developed in conformity with the laws of nature. These relations therefore are themselves natural laws independent of the influence of time. They are eternal laws which must always govern society. Thus, there has been history, but there is no longer any. There has been history, since there were the institutions of feudalism, and in these institutions of feudalism we find quite different relations of production from those of bourgeois society, which the economists try to pass off as natural and as such, eternal.”
It was something about how atheism, science and other religions are beliefs but Christianity isn’t because it’s the truth or whatever the twisted logic pretzel was
amazing! all the encoding of communication, with none of that pesky ‘meaning’
